Premium
SU‐F‐T‐633: Cyberknife Boost Versus Conventional Tandem and Ovoid Treatment for Cervical Cancer
Author(s) -
Santoro J,
Witten M,
Haas J
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4956818
Subject(s) - cyberknife , ovoid , brachytherapy , dosimetry , nuclear medicine , medicine , radiation treatment planning , cervical cancer , radiation therapy , rectum , radiology , medical physics , cancer , surgery , radiosurgery , mathematics , geometry
Purpose: Brachytherapy has been the standard of care for cervical cancer for 100 years. The treatment can be administered using an HDR (high dose rate) remote afterloader with a 192 Ir source in an outpatient setting, a PDR afterloader with a 192 Ir source, or with LDR manually loaded or a remote afterloader utilizing 192 Ir or 137 Cs sources in an inpatient setting. The procedure involves the placement of a tandem and ovoid, tandem and ring, or tandem and cylinder applicator in an operating room setting with the patient under general anesthesia. Inaccuracies introduced into the process occurring between placement of the applicator and actual delivery can introduce uncertainty into the actual dose delivered to the tumor and critical organs. In this study we seek to investigate the dosimetric difference between an SBRT‐based radiotherapy boost and conventional Brachytherapy in treating cervical cancer. Methods: Five HDR tandem and ovoid patients were planned using the Brachyvision treatment planning system and treated in four fractions using the Varian Varisource afterloader (Varian Medical Systems). For the same cohort, the patient planning CTs were imported into Multiplan (Accuray Inc) and a dose/fractionation‐equivalent CyberKnife SBRT plan was retrospectively generated. Dosimetric quantities such as target/CTV D90, V90, D2cc for rectum, bladder, and bowel were measured and compared between the two modalities. Results: The CTV D90 for the tandem and ovoid was 2540cGy (90.7%) and 3009cGy (107.5%) for the CyberKnife plan. The D2cc for the rectum, bladder, and bowel were 1576cGy, 1641cGy, and 996cGy for the tandem and ovoid and 1374cGy, 1564cGy, and 1547cGy for CyberKnife. Conclusion: The D2cc doses to critical structures are comparable in both modalities. The CTV coverage is far superior for the CyberKnife plan. The dose distribution for CyberKnife has the advantage of increased conformality and lower maximum CTV dose.